John, perhaps you know a lot about the transportation stuff and get present something to the TWG at the next TWG meeting, 4th Tuesday of the month. I'd really like that. Sue -- John Rizzo <jrizzo@sprintmail.com> wrote: I agree that we need to be on record against this ASAP, and that if removing the two clauses will get us there, then let's do it. I do think the corruption issue needs to be addressed at some later point. This is not mere back-room dealing. I also think that the traffic issue should be taken up later. It is not true that a recreation project would create as much traffic. There is some analysis on this. Perhaps the Transportation working group can take it up at some later point. The Mills Mall will actually bring in less to the City than the current tenants over a ten-year period. Again, Mills' handiwork. A real recreation project, fairly negotiated, could do well, as waterfront recreation projects in Manhattan have. BTW, I was at the DCCC to lobby for the adoption of their resolution. It turned out to be an easy task, as there was overwhelming opposition to Mills. There were no "no" votes, and only 3 abstentions. There is a hearing on Monday at Government Audits Committee, 1 pm, in the supervisors chambers. Word is that Mills will have 100 people testifying. Mills is also robo-calling, telling people that corporate interests are trying to defeat their "recreation project." If you can go to testify against it, it would help. http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=29787 John
Dave,
Great. I liked your draft. Since you have no problem dropping the "political" sections and I don't care because I just want us on record ASAP against the project, then let's go . Let's go for consensus at the GM. No Home Depot and No Mills Waterfront Mall!
The unsettled questions surrounding this can be dealt with at a later date.
Mark
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.